A motion to
suspend for six months all the
officials of the Philippine Postal Corporation (PhilPost) involved in
the P10-million computer procurement scandal marked by lack of bidding was filed last April 27 before the Office of the Ombudsman.

This was filed after Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) represented by its president Berteni "Toto" Cataluña Causing
and ALAM PhilPost chapter president Tirso Paglicawan filed administrative complaints against the same post office officials for grave misconduct, dishonesty, abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public service.

At the same time, ALAM president Causing and Paglicawan filed criminal charges of falsification and violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act 3019.

There was falsification because these officials, led by Postmaster General Josie dela Cruz, a former governor of Bulacan who lost the last bid to Governor Willy Alvarado, made it appear there was a public bidding for the supply of P10-million worth of computers and internet lines to the Philpost.

There was violation of Section 3(e) because these officials gave unwarranted benefit to Philippine Long Distance Co. (PLDT).

The benefit was unwarranted because there was no public bidding that could warrant the award to PLDT.

The witnesses of ALAM include he PhilPost Rank-and-File Employees Association (PRAFEA) Manny Rama.

The contract of PLDT was not dated although it showed to have been notarized only in March 2012 although the computers and internet lines appeared to have already supplied.

The contract was for the Pangilinan-owned company to deliver 200 unbranded computer units with 200 two-year internet connections amounting
to P9,515,200.00.

Xitrix
Computer Corp. signed an undated contract with PhilPost for the
procurement of 100 unbranded computer sets and 45 unknown-barcode scanners
amounting to P2,374,750.00. In addition, it also entered into another undated contract passed off as a repeat order for
25 unbranded computer sets and 11 unknown-barcode scanners worth P591,925.00.

In ALAM’s motion for preventive suspension,
complainants Causing and Paglicawan, by themselves, argued that a preventive suspension for six months is necessary becauseit is
"necessary for these officials to be prevented from tampering with evidence and
influencing the witnesses in order not to frustrate the ends of justice and the
Filipino who want no less than faithful, loyal and honest service from the
PhilPost."

Further, the stated that "there is clear and
present danger that the respondents will manipulate documents and compel
witnesses to perjure."

“This is because they know that the offenses
charge against them are so grave and shameful. They also know there is no other
way to escape the extreme punishment of dismissal from the service except for
obliterating all footprints of their revolting misdeeds,” Causing and Paglicawan continued.

Causing added that the manipulation of documents is so easy for the respondents to do because these are in their possession.

“It is also easy for them to threaten witnesses
and for these threats to bear fruits for them because of the spectre of fear
towering over the heads of employees of PhilPost entrenched by them by dangling
a 'rationalization' program that seeks to dismiss thousand employees.”

“In addition, these respondents have the
propensity to lie as proven by the continuous display of Executive Order No.
366 despite their full knowledge that this directive came from a ‘Dead Law’
that ceased to be effective as of 31 December 2005.”

“That ‘Dead Law’ is the budget law for 2004 that
was automatically appropriated as the budget law for 2005 because of the
failure of the Congress to pass an appropriation act for that later year.”

Causing and Paglicawan also said that there is
also an equitable reason to suspend respondents. "When in doubt, the interest of private individual
must weight to the interest of the State and its people."

“In this case, the interest of the State and its
people that is placed in great peril is the interest of substantial justice for
the thievery of the people’s money,” Causing and Paglicawan argued.